search_assets

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It never confirms this is a read-only operation, says nothing about result ordering, case sensitivity, truncation at the limit, or what happens when query is empty (which by default would return everything under /Game).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single dense sentence with the goal front-loaded and no filler. Every clause maps to a real parameter distinction.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits limit behavior, default scope (/Game, empty query), and any indication of return shape. An agent cannot predict result size or pagination from this text.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it partially does: 'under a path' maps to path, 'package path substring' to query, and 'exact class name' to asset_class, including the important substring-vs-exact distinction. However, the fourth parameter, limit, is never mentioned or explained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Find assets') plus the scoping mechanism ('under a path', 'package path substring and/or exact class name'). This clearly separates it from read-heavy siblings like read_asset or list_assets, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implies a filtered search and that the two filters can be combined ('and/or'), but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to list_assets or read_asset as alternatives. An agent must infer whether this or list_assets is the right entry point.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.